Share this story

In a blog post published today, a spokesperson for Twitter announced that the company has decided to block paid advertisement posts by Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik. "Twitter has made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned by Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, effective immediately," the post stated.

The bans are the result of "retrospective work" done by Twitter's global public policy team to investigate the use of the service during the 2016 presidential elections to conduct state-sponsored influence campaigns. The US intelligence community found "that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government," the Twitter spokesperson wrote.

"We did not come to this decision lightly and are taking this step now as part of our ongoing commitment to help protect the integrity of the user experience on Twitter," the post states. "Early this year, the US intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter."

The decision by Twitter executives does not ban RT and Sputnik from having accounts on Twitter, nor does it block their "organic" posts. But it does prevent them from reaching out to a wider audience through sponsored "tweets."

According to Twitter, RT is estimated to have paid $1.9 million for global advertising to Twitter since it began advertising through the service, including $274,100 in US-targeted advertising in 2016. Twitter will "donate those funds to support external research into the use of Twitter in civic engagement and elections," the post announced, "including use of malicious automation and misinformation with an initial focus on elections and automation. We will have more details to share on this disbursement soon."

The action does not target any other Russian advertisers. It also does not address the "bot" accounts that amplify messages posted by RT and Sputnik. In September, Twitter identified 22 accounts that matched up with some of the 470 accounts identified by Facebook as "bot" accounts; many had already been identified as bots and had been banned, and those that remained were shut down.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

Imagine another country asking Twitter to ban Fox News from posting promoted tweets due to their pro-American stance or agenda.

We live in a country with a free press that values free speech. If we didn't, the election "interference" wouldn't have been possible. The real issue here is that we have a nation full of morons that can't handle that responsibility. The solution is not to start down the road of de-platforming media outlets.

Blocking external state sponsored targeted propaganda and misinformation is a far cry from 'de-platforming' the free press.

I would normally say this was out of line... But yeah, that's a pretty accurate depiction of the state of US corps these days. As long as plausible deniability existed they eagerly milked these Russian agitprop fronts for all they could, and only now are they going "oh no! such a bad thing we won't do anymore!". They'll do the same thing the next time around, just with different disinformation pushers, and then say they're sorry and that they won't do it again afterwards.

Edit: Missed the info on them using the money for "external research." I do think that them using the money to research how to make them more popular and influential in election cycles is pretty self-serving.

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

Twitter asked RT to "Deliver an unbiased point of view of the US elections with an edge utilizing the powerful technology of Twitter to distribute the message in real time.”

RT declined the offer from Twitter.

Quote:

In order to entice RT to agree to the exclusive elections offer, Twitter promised a package of perks and bonuses.

The offer included such things as closed beta testing of new tools and products; a customized emoji-hashtag that would help RT stand out with special election coverage; customized analytics and research solutions; and a dedicated team of Twitter experts to help with content curation and media strategy.

The exclusive Twitter offer was eventually declined by RT due to the excessive price tag – much higher than the usual RT budgets for social media promotion – and due to a lack of confidence on behalf of RT that this campaign would benefit the network.

In other totally real news™:

Iraqi State News Agency reports resounding success in flushing corruption from government and assures it's citizens can rest soundly knowing that their leaders are nigh godlike.

Cuban Government Newspaper reports that democracy is over rated, and people are really happier under autocratic leadership.

The North Korean Star assures its citizens that they've had enough to eat today.

Imagine another country asking Twitter to ban Fox News from posting promoted tweets due to their pro-American stance or agenda.

We live in a country with a free press that values free speech. If we didn't, the election "interference" wouldn't have been possible. The real issue here is that we have a nation full of morons that can't handle that responsibility. The solution is not to start down the road of de-platforming media outlets.

Blocking external state sponsored targeted propaganda and misinformation is a far cry from 'de-platforming' the free press.

It is absolutely starting down the road of de-platforming. But beyond that, why is it Twitter's responsibility to limit the reach of a foreign media outlet? Should they also prevent Voice of America, which has a Twitter account, from posting promoted tweets?

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

Did you check which article you're reading on Ars? It's about RT and Twitter. So, RT's emails from Twitter asking RT to spend money on a 2016 US election ads campaign are exactly relevant.

I think he's calling into question RT's reliability as a source of news about itself. They're a known propaganda arm of Putin's government, so they're not exactly a great source of news about themselves, or really anything that Putin might want spun in his favor.

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

Did you check which article you're reading on Ars? It's about RT and Twitter. So, RT's emails from Twitter asking RT to spend money on a 2016 US election ads campaign are exactly relevant.

I think he's calling into question RT's reliability as a source of news about itself. They're a known propaganda arm of Putin's government, so they're not exactly a great source of news about themselves, or really anything that Putin might want spun in his favor.

Yes. This is what I was trying to do. RT is the propaganda arm of Russia. That fact can't be disputed. Of course they are not going to publish anything unflattering of Russia or the role it played in the election.

Show me a NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, Reuters, NBC, AP,..... (you get the idea) article that backs up the claim of RT. I'll wait.

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

Did you check which article you're reading on Ars? It's about RT and Twitter. So, RT's emails from Twitter asking RT to spend money on a 2016 US election ads campaign are exactly relevant.

I think he's calling into question RT's reliability as a source of news about itself. They're a known propaganda arm of Putin's government, so they're not exactly a great source of news about themselves, or really anything that Putin might want spun in his favor.

Election advertisements are fundamentally different than commercial ads. Buying a car pushed by Lexus won't undo years of work de-arming Iran at what turned out to be the behest of a foreign power seeking to diminish the US globally.

To say they should be treated the same is to endorse a false equivalency.

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

If you understand its biases and limitations, it can give you a different perspective on issues even if at minimum it only tells you how the Russians view a particular issue...which can be informative in itself.

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

If you understand its biases and limitations, it can give you a different perspective on issues even if at minimum it only tells you how the Russians view a particular issue...which can be informative in itself.

I 100% agree but also think that using the RT as a primary source of evidence for anything is 100% useless. State mouthpieces are only useful in giving you a window into the incentives and motivations of their associated state; not as news.

Election advertisements are fundamentally different than commercial ads. Buying a car pushed by Lexus won't undo years of work de-arming Iran at what turned out to be the behest of a foreign power seeking to diminish the US globally.

To say they should be treated the same is to endorse a false equivalency.

There have been regulations and disclosure requirements surrounding print and broadcast political ads for decades to protect transparency and accountability (citizens united aside). Why should digital political ads be different? We're now realizing that they should be treated the same because they are incredibly effective and will be abused otherwise by actors both domestic and abroad

Well, this is for show, to build good PR with Twitter users and advertisers.

RT has published an article detailing that Twitter actually contacted and pushed to RT to spend big money on an US election ads campaign, to have their style of reporting present during the 2016 US federal election:

So the propaganda arm of the Russian government is a reliable source for you?

If you understand its biases and limitations, it can give you a different perspective on issues even if at minimum it only tells you how the Russians view a particular issue...which can be informative in itself.

Yeah.. and how does Twitter banning them from targeting people via advertising who can't be assed to understand this an issue [these people don't even understand it's an ad they're clicking on, let alone what RT is]?